Four/Seven Debate is an ancient philosophical debate evolved around the concepts that explores innate human feelings; "Four" signifies the four moral sentiments that people have since they are born (Humanity, Righteousness, Propriety, and Wisdom), and "Seven", the seven natural feelings people get from their encounters with the world (Desire, Hate, Love, Fear, Grief, Anger, and Joy). The main point of contention that the prominent neo-Confucianists debated on was whether the feelings are affected by "yi" - the basic laws and principles of the universe - or by "ki"- materials that form the universe and the people.
The debate played a significant role in the development of Korean neo-Confucianism. Because ancient Asians did not make clear distinction from the physicality and metaphysicality and because the distinction between "yi" and "ki" was not very clear, the debate went on without conclusion, adding diversity to the Korean philosophy.
In my perspective, I think what shapes the basic human nature is the "ki", the seven feelings. True, many people believe in the "innateness" of human nature - whether it is kind or mean. They think humans have certain sentiments from the moment of their birth and that the emotions shape the basic nature of humankind. Yet, I think people get to learn and have emotions as they live with other people. It is only when people are educated that people feel such feelings as humanity, propriety, righteousness, and wisdom. No one, without any encounters with the society, has certain feelings; the reason why babies cry is not because they are sad, as many ancient philosophers claimed, but because crying helps them cope with their lives and thus survive.
The concepts are very very complex and thus my opinions may lie only on the superficial level of this debate. Yet, for a person who has been influenced by Western culture where physicality and metaphysicality are sharply divided, the concept of "yi" which claims the inherent morality of people seems quite weird.
Robotics cannot exist if we accept the concept of "yi" in presence. Robots are "given" nature. If there are basic human sentiments, robots would not be able to be assimilated in human society because there is a fundamental gap. In the status quo, however, we see that that is not true.
The debate played a significant role in the development of Korean neo-Confucianism. Because ancient Asians did not make clear distinction from the physicality and metaphysicality and because the distinction between "yi" and "ki" was not very clear, the debate went on without conclusion, adding diversity to the Korean philosophy.
In my perspective, I think what shapes the basic human nature is the "ki", the seven feelings. True, many people believe in the "innateness" of human nature - whether it is kind or mean. They think humans have certain sentiments from the moment of their birth and that the emotions shape the basic nature of humankind. Yet, I think people get to learn and have emotions as they live with other people. It is only when people are educated that people feel such feelings as humanity, propriety, righteousness, and wisdom. No one, without any encounters with the society, has certain feelings; the reason why babies cry is not because they are sad, as many ancient philosophers claimed, but because crying helps them cope with their lives and thus survive.
The concepts are very very complex and thus my opinions may lie only on the superficial level of this debate. Yet, for a person who has been influenced by Western culture where physicality and metaphysicality are sharply divided, the concept of "yi" which claims the inherent morality of people seems quite weird.
Robotics cannot exist if we accept the concept of "yi" in presence. Robots are "given" nature. If there are basic human sentiments, robots would not be able to be assimilated in human society because there is a fundamental gap. In the status quo, however, we see that that is not true.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기